Which stone for exterior wall

I wouldn’t know why anyone would want thicker masonry than statically required. It costs more money and floor space without providing any practical benefit.

It feels like nowadays buildings are mostly constructed with aerated concrete plus insulation. But since aerated concrete is less load-bearing than calcium silicate brick, the walls are usually thicker. Could that be the reason?

Best regards

K1300S

I have 2 construction performance descriptions so far, and both are based on 17.5 cm aerated concrete + 16 cm insulation + exterior plaster. The walls in the examples are not made of sand-lime brick and are not thicker... and the structural engineer in the family told me: have 24 cm masonry offered to you and stick with the 16 cm insulation. That is where my question comes from...

Then have the structural engineer explain to you why you should do that. As long as there are no concrete reasons (soundproofing, earthquake protection, ...) for it, I would leave it.

The specific reason, namely soundproofing, actually exists. A railway track borders the property directly.

It might then possibly be interesting to compare 17.5 cm KS with 24 cm aerated concrete combined with the same insulation in terms of noise protection as well as overall insulation.

Why don't you just ask the "befriended structural engineer" or your architect? And on what basis did you obtain the offers? There must be some basis after all.

I have asked general questions regarding wall construction here. Should I unsubscribe just because I know a structural engineer? I do not have any offers but, as mentioned, various service descriptions from companies in the region (there are 3, not 2 as first stated). I have simply assumed/claimed that the "thin" wall which is not KS plus insulation is the cheapest option because, according to my understanding, the standard is listed in the service descriptions and more is always possible for an additional charge.